- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Populism (and Dobbs) is the basis for "muh democracy" rants and ravings from the DEMs
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
See this is exactly what I'm talking about with you trying to shift to evaluating the policies as opposed to what's actually being discussed.
I’m not even evaluating them, I’m just accurately describing what they do. People can “discuss” all sorts of silly shite. Some black people may have believed Biden when he said the GOP wants them back in chains, but I’m under no obligation to address that as if it’s a legitimate concern.
You apparently think all of the participants of this thread are on the witness stand and you get to dictate what they discuss. Sorry to disappoint.
1
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Sophistry
Do you think this thread is an appropriate place to discuss Tua v. Justin Herbert? Or whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
There can be no doubt that if we allowed the entire world to vote in American president elections that it would help Democrats. Does that mean that if I say that's a bad idea I'm partisan? Therefore my argument isn't any good because it's just partisan benefit to my side?
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm not "attacking" anything related to Dobbs
You have multiple times in this thread claimed the Dobbs decision by those evil Trump justices stole rights away from tons of Americans, and then followed it up with 49 year precedent as justification for it. That is stating that even if a law is bad, made up a right or lack of a right, but has been around for a long time means it should just be left on the books.
According to your line of thought which you have repeated multiple times, so it is clearly not a random thought, this was an evil decision and has ruined something rather allowing for legitimate and appropriate law/rights to be determined.
Again, precedent is a crutch used for horrible decisions like segregation cases to be upheld for way to long, but according to you we should still be allowed to segregate since precedent held for many decades prior to its overturning.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:29 pm to dafif
quote:
That is an absolute bald faced lie
Which part?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:31 pm to OceanMan
quote:
There is no way you can argue for no voter ID if it isn’t specifically to help your own “team”. None.
Voter access in a democracy, on its face, is a non-partisan argument that refutes your point.
quote:
I mean are voter roles seen as a restriction? H
Yes
quote:
Having to actually register to vote?
Yes
quote:
Pushing not having to have an ID to vote is pushing for cheating.
a. Are you implying only one side cheats?
b. Why doesn't the GOP use the policy for their advantage?
(a) should easily be no and (b) should be "they can't", which is why it's a partisan issue.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The fact is the “muh democracy” movement is designed specifically for the purpose of democrat authoritarian rule. If you think otherwise, you are fricking stupid.
Read it again. The truth hasn’t changed.
You are literally just pushing aside any argument against you by calling it emotional.
quote:
Want to bet?
What, that you shitposted in threads about Hungary on TD? If there were threads on TD, yeah I’d been that you shitposted in it. Name the stakes, I’m in.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:33 pm to Flats
quote:
You apparently think all of the participants of this thread are on the witness stand and you get to dictate what they discuss.
More like I'm trying to keep the discussion on topic, but that doesn't really apply to the exchange you just quoted.
I'm discussing abstract ideas regarding impact of policies and you're trying to discuss evaluating the policies themselves.
If you want to discuss the merits of security v. access, fine, but it's not really apt for this thread.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:34 pm to NM Tiger 67
quote:
Sophistry
Not at all. Those discussions are as relevant to this thread as evaluating voter ID laws as a policy.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:35 pm to NM Tiger 67
quote:
There can be no doubt that if we allowed the entire world to vote in American president elections that it would help Democrats.
Agreed. The US has a LOT more DEM voters.
quote:
Does that mean that if I say that's a bad idea I'm partisan?
If part of that is to protect the GOP, then yes.
But those sorts of evaluations were not part of OP.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Limited government...as it applies to their beliefs. Not so limited elsewhere (police state, abortion, immigration, trade, etc.)
Limited govt does not equal no govt. it’s necessary to have some structure on immigration and trade. Abortion? Removing the Fed out of the equation isn’t limited government?
I won’t even justify “police state” with a response.
quote:
limited govt, law and order and individual freedom Literally a philosophical conundrum in real time
Are you trying to imply these can’t coexist in the same universe? There’s a broad spectrum betweeen anarchy and militant police state.
quote:
If the opposite were true, we could’ve stacked the court under prior administrations…but we didn’t. Trump couldn't get the ACA repealed. Why do you think he could get this much more extreme policy implemented?
I’m not just talking about Trump. The republicans have controlled all three branches of govt 3 times that I can remember and never once considered expanding SCOTUS to get their way…or if they did I didn’t hear about it.
Again…it seems like the thing progressives fear most is a right wing that adopts left wing tactics.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:37 pm to OceanMan
quote:
Read it again. The truth hasn’t changed.
"muh democracy" is a talking point for the current DEMs to lose as few seats as possible. The population of those running who need this help and are left-authoritarians is very low. The left-authoritarians are in extremist districts and don't need the help (and have no concern of losing).
You posted an appeal to emotion with an ad hom.
quote:
What, that you shitposted in threads about Hungary on TD?
No where I was the "primary contributor".
There are probably very few threads, if any, where I even participated, let alone was the "primary contributor" in
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:44 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
Limited govt does not equal no govt. it’s necessary to have some structure on immigration and trade.
But their literal policies are to add government to both areas, the opposite of "limiting" government.
quote:
Are you trying to imply these can’t coexist in the same universe?
"law and order" requires a police state to enforce. It's the primary vehicle to expand government into the every day lives of citizens.
I've never seen a libertarian promote the "police state" as a tenet of his/her philosophy. It's the antithesis to their philosophy.
quote:
I’m not just talking about Trump. The republicans have controlled all three branches of govt 3 times that I can remember and never once considered expanding SCOTUS to get their way…or if they did I didn’t hear about it.
"Because the GOP is full of RINO sucks" - this board
There's a reason that the more moderate GOP pols would never do such a thing and why that policy is for extremists only. But there aren't enough even semi-extremists to accomplish this goal. Again, Trump couldn't even get the ACA repealed and that's a LOT less controversial policy than court packing.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I said whole world. As in. WORLD
Agreed. The US has a LOT more DEM voters
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if Plessy was a bad ruling, hence asking if he was a Plessy-denier
If the separate was truly equal, then it is not violative of the 14th Amendment and; therefore, constitutional. Thus, Plessy would not be wrong, Brown would be.
The fact that Plessy was operative law for the 50+ years it was precedent does not make it constitutional. The document is what it is and says what it says. Something is not constituonal (or not) because of judicial whim.
This post was edited on 11/5/22 at 12:54 pm
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Dismissing wanting secure elections as partisan because they help the GOP is pure sophistry.
If part of that is to protect the GOP, then yes.
Again. If you take that approach, then no discussion whatsoever is possible because ANY policy will tend to help one side or the other.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm discussing abstract ideas regarding impact of policies
And the impacts you’re attempting to claim are inaccurate and dishonest. What’s the point of discussing an “abstract idea” regarding the impact of nuclear power if I claim that nuclear power will kill us all and render the earth uninhabitable?
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
a. Are you implying only one side cheats?
I’m explicitly stating that eliminating a control that is used to reconcile the people eligible to vote against actual votes, without any other mitigating control would be done to gain an advantage
One wouldn’t argue that cops should not run radar unless they intended or wanted others allowed to speed. One wouldn’t argue you shouldn’t need a ticket to attend a football game unless they planned or wanted others allowed to go for free. These aren’t perfect parallels, and you can argue their effectiveness, but the intent is clear.
quote:
b. Why doesn't the GOP use the policy for their advantage?
So here you are making this partisan. I am discussing a risk, and mitigating effort to reduce the risk to achieve an accurate result. Not the best ways to cheat in an election.
I see now, you don’t even support voter roles ie inventorying available votes as necessary in an election. The entire premise of this thread is about “threats to democracy” but creating a basic structure to mitigate the risk that votes are actually representative is not a priority. This isn’t about creating logical arguments, it’s about the way you feel, which you have used as your rebuttal the entire thread.
Congrats, you got the internet to argue with you. Can’t wait to see what kind of dumb arse shite you have to say about the game tonight. A double header of ridiculous takes that you can’t seem to find anyone to agree with you on.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:51 pm to SquatchDawg
quote:
There’s a broad spectrum betweeen anarchy and militant police state.
Self-proclaimed libertarians LOVE to pretend that this is a binary issue.
Posted on 11/5/22 at 12:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I'm discussing abstract ideas regarding impact of policies and you're trying to discuss evaluating the policies themselves.
Holy shite I can’t look away. You really trying to say you haven’t done any policy evaluation? Like voter ID laws?
Page 14 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News